I am starting to get sick of these ridiculous articles from people who obviously have good intentions to make the world a healthier place but their are in my opinion scaremongering and spreading misinformation. Here is my attempt at debunking one of them.
Before I start this rant I would like to clarify I don’t have any formal qualifications to lend to this post and this is just one mans opinion, so it looks like I’m as qualified as the food babe so here we go.
Food babe recently posted an article about the Starbucks spiced pumpkin latte
The crux of it all was she is unhappy that she can’t find an ingredients list on their website for the products and she has a gripe with some of the ingredients.
She writes:
But first, I want to mention that I get riled up when restaurants refuse to disclose their ingredients, because we have the right to know what we are eating and drinking. I’ve tried for years to get ingredient information from Starbucks and it’s been a bit frustrating to say the least. If you’ve ever tried emailing their customer service for ingredients you probably know what I’m talking about.
This is the first issue I have, while I agree in principle with here we should all know what is in our food, I managed to Google it and 10 seconds later I amazingly found that you can get a list of ingredients from Starbucks, its on their website here. Just search for what you want and ta-da it magically appears.
Then she goes on to say:
You’ve probably heard me talk about caramel coloring before, and that’s because I think it’s one of the most hazardous chemicals being added to our food. Although it sounds harmless, food safety and consumer watch dog groups say it is not.
As far as I’m concerned this is just opinion, and the fda and EFSA seem to think its safe. And as always these things are under review and will be changed if there is any significant and consistent results that indicate a potential hazard. Based on their reasonable qualifications and the role of the agencies, I think that’s good enough for me.
Next she pleads her case:
Why Starbucks should stop using Class IV Caramel Coloring immediately:
1. It’s created in a laboratory by reacting corn sugar with ammonia and sulfites under high pressure and temperature, which produces the byproduct 4-Mel.
2. A U.S government funded study found that feeding mice caramel coloring IV (which contained 4-Mel) increased their risk of developing lung cancer and leukemia, at every dosage level.
3. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies 4-Mel as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.
4. Any food or drink that contains more than 29 micrograms of 4-Mel requires a cancer warning label In California (under Prop 65) that says, “WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.”
5. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) petitioned the FDA to ban caramel coloring in 2011 due to safety concerns and the cancer risk of allowing this ingredient in our food.
6. It has no nutritional benefits and is only used cosmetically to improve the appearance of food and drinks, yet there are safer alternatives available to food manufacturers.
7. It’s sometimes added unnecessarily to food and drinks that are naturally brown or that are not even visible to the consumer (e.g. baby vitamin drops).
8. It’s the most widely used food coloring in the world, which makes it easy to consume excessive amounts.
9. Thankfully, the FDA is currently reviewing its safety and GRAS status, due to a Consumer Reports study that found excessive levels in many popular drinks.
If I take those in turn.
1. They are created in a lab – is that really a reason to ban something, antibiotics and vaccines are created in a lab should we ban those ?
2. The US government study also stated that in rats there was no carcinogenic activity in male rats based on the high doses and equivocal evidence in females – which as I understand it means its open to interpretation. So that is misleading at best. The other link in that point is to food navigator, food babe has cherry picked the information in this article form a DR Urvashi Rangan, who believes there is no safe level of 4-MEI. But if you read the whole article there is a while raft if info stating as I did above that the fda considers it safe but is reviewing the information.
3. Yes the IARC has classified it as “potentially carcinogenic to humans” as far as I understand it, this could mean what it says or it could mean the evidence is inconclusive and needs further study
4. The next point covers prop 65 and California. Notice it doesn’t cover the rest of the US. I wonder why – could it be because the fda says it is safe? Maybe, maybe not. Another point to make re: prop 65 that I found on one of the links food babe kindly provides as evidence against the use of 4-Mel is this. Prop 65 was according to Ted Nixon the CEO of a caramel colours company was based on contradictory science, the 2 year study on rats, and a 2 year study on mice that contradict each other. While this isn’t a ringing endorsement as it is quite possibly bias, he is right, it is a contradictory study. Another point could be, if you feed mice with a high dose of anything for a period of 2 years it could quite easily cause cancer.
5. Again in this point the petition sites the 1 study as a part of the petition, I’m starting to think is the only study they can use, why hasn’t it been replicated ?
6. The next point states there is no nutritional benefit and there are safer alternatives, evidently no nutritional benefit is cause for banning, and there is the foregone conclusion that caramel colours are dangerous which again according the fda …. blah blah blah
7. The next point references baby drops, not sure how that is a reason for Starbucks to ban it, surely that should be aimed at those manufacturing baby drops?
8. Not sure how to answer the next point .. any help would be grateful, In my opinion the statement is wrong but can’t put my finger on why.
9. And finally the point about the fda investigation , she is using that as a reason to get Starbucks to stop using it before the results of the fda investigation, potentially causing a vast amount of outlay to Starbucks unnecessarily.
The next question is
Why would a business take something out if it is at present considered safe for consumption by the authorities based on all the available evidence, and the opinion of an internet blogger and her “army”.
I have an answer for that, because of the bottom line, it would be cheaper to cave to the rants of a blogger and her “army” than to actually fight it with science and evidence.
What is also odd about this post is that she recommends as an alternative to the devil starbucks drink, finding organic fair trade coffee providers, now forgive me if I’m wrong I’m sure I saw on the fda site that 4-Mel can also be produced when coffee beans are roasted.
In conclusion in my opinion I think food babe does genuinely want to help consumers be more prepared and aware of what is in their food, but trying to do it through spreading mis information isn’t the way to go. A swing and a miss.
Originally posted on 
Originally posted on 
Originally posted on 